Loading ITAT cases…
128 orders · Page 2 of 3
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This decision was based on CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals with a tax effect below a certain threshold.
The Tribunal dismissed the first appeal due to unexplained delay. For the second appeal, the Tribunal held that the STPI approval, subsequently ratified by the Board, satisfied the conditions for Section 10B deduction, following a jurisdictional High Court decision.
The Tribunal followed the decision of the jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat, which had held that in the absence of material change, the Revenue should not have disallowed the claim of service charges in a subsequent assessment year when it was allowed in preceding years. The High Court dismissed the Revenue's appeal.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal. The assessee conceded that the issue regarding premium on securities was decided against them by the jurisdictional High Court. The other grounds were not contested.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition for payments made before July 13, 2006, as the amendment to Section 40A(3) was not applicable. The addition for payments made after this date was not contested by the assessee.
The Tribunal restored the penalty issue back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was done because the quantum issue of commission disallowance had been remitted back to the AO for fresh adjudication.
The Tribunal considered the CBDT circular No. 21/2015 which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of appeals with a low tax effect. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the assessee's offer of profit was unsubstantiated and that the concealment of the bank account and transactions justified the levy of penalty.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not pressed, subject to the condition that the addition made for AY 2007-08 would be excluded from the income of AY 2009-10 to avoid double taxation.
The tribunal dismissed the addition for capital gains as the expenses were unsubstantiated. For deemed dividend, the addition was restricted to Rs. 5,89,400. For commission expenses, 10% of the commission income was allowed as expenditure.
The Tribunal held that since the assessee was not engaged in any business and its only income was interest, which was also held to be exempt from tax by the jurisdictional High Court, the penalty under Section 271B was not leviable. The penalty was accordingly set aside.
The Tribunal noted the assessee's submission and the lack of objection from the Revenue. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn.
The Tribunal restricted the disallowance of travelling expenses to 50% due to lack of complete discussion by lower authorities and the assessee's failure to prove business nexus. The disallowance of late PF contribution was deleted, following a co-ordinate bench ruling on the due date calculation.
The Tribunal held that the penalty had no basis as a co-ordinate bench had previously accepted the assessee's quantum appeal, granting exemption under Section 10(10D).
The Tribunal held that charging fees does not automatically make an educational institution commercial. It noted that the trust had a deficit and referred to judicial precedents stating that a surplus arising incidentally does not negate the charitable purpose.
The Tribunal held that interest income earned on surplus deposits with nationalized banks is not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). However, the assessee is eligible for a statutory deduction of Rs. 50,000 under Section 80P(2)(c)(ii) and can claim pro rata expenses for earning such interest income.
The Tribunal held that the due date for crediting employee contributions to the provident fund is as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act. Belated deposits, even if made before the return filing due date, are not eligible for deduction and are deemed income.
The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer made an estimated disallowance without properly determining the unreasonableness of the payment. The case was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo decision.
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, citing a CBDT circular that mandates withdrawal of pending appeals with a low tax effect. The assessee's cross-objection was dismissed as not pressed.
The tribunal decided to remit the issue of penalty correctness back to the Assessing Officer. This is to allow the assessee to present all relevant facts and receive an adequate opportunity of hearing.
The Tribunal considered a CBDT circular which mandated withdrawal or non-pressing of pending appeals with a low tax effect. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the disputed amount represented business income. Considering the assessee's past profit margins, it was deemed appropriate to add an estimated gross profit of 12% on the disputed amount.
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest disallowance to the AO for verification of whether the recipients offered the income. The discrepancy in Form 26AS was also restored to the AO for fresh verification by the assessee.
The Tribunal held that the due date for crediting employee contributions to the provident fund is as prescribed under the Provident Fund Act. Belated deposits, even if made before the return filing due date, are not eligible for deduction and are deemed income.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal considered the assessee's request for withdrawal. The revenue had no objection to the withdrawal.
The Tribunal found that the AO's calculation of the peak amount was unclear and that the assessee had provided explanations for the cash deposits, including a gift from his brother. The matter was remitted back to the AO for verification.
The Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remanded the matter back to the AO. The AO is directed to verify the returns of both the assessee and the HUF to ensure no double taxation occurs.
The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer erred in adding the long-term capital gains as they were already disclosed in the gross total income. Therefore, the penalty levied for concealment of income was not sustainable.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of ad-hoc disallowance of expenses, finding that details were eventually provided and examined. It also upheld the deletion of additions for unsecured loans, concluding they were genuine trade creditors.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by CBDT Circular No. 21/2015. The case did not fall under any exemption clauses.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision relied upon by the revenue was not applicable as it dealt with interest on delayed payment of interest, not interest on a refund of wrongly levied interest. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to interest under section 244A on the refunded interest.
The Tribunal held that the Supreme Court's decision regarding interest on delayed payment of interest was not applicable to refunds of interest wrongly charged. Therefore, the AO's reliance on the judgment was misplaced.
The CIT(A) held that the assessee is entitled to both depreciation and additional depreciation on spare parts and machinery capitalized and used for production. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order.
The Tribunal held that Rule 8D was not applicable for AY 2006-07 as it was not in force. Therefore, the disallowance under Section 14A was restricted to a reasonable estimate of 10% of the exempt income.
The Tribunal noted that the jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the assessee's own case rendered the present appeal academic and infructuous. The Departmental Representative did not oppose this submission.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. This was based on CBDT Circular No. 21 of 2015, which mandates dismissal of appeals where the tax effect is below a certain monetary limit.
The Tribunal considered the CBDT circular no. 21/2015, which mandates withdrawal or non-pressing of departmental appeals with low tax effect. Consequently, both appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.
The Tribunal held that the provident fund trust was recognized, as its initial recognition in 1981 had not been withdrawn. The Tribunal also noted that similar issues in earlier assessment years had been decided in favor of the assessee and had attained finality.
The Tribunal held that the delay in passing the rectification order was not attributable to the assessee. Therefore, the assessee should not be charged interest for the period of delay. The Assessing Officer was directed to delete the levy of interest for two months.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases, upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases. The assessee's appeals were dismissed due to a significant delay and lack of proper condonation procedure.
The Tribunal held that depreciation is allowable on capital assets from the income of a charitable trust for determining the quantum of funds applied for trust purposes. This position was supported by various High Court decisions and legislative intent.
The Tribunal, following its own previous decisions and the Gujarat High Court's ruling, partly allowed the disallowance under Section 14A and allowed the deduction under Section 80IA(4). The issue regarding re-computation of sales value of power was also allowed.
The Tribunal held that Section 200A, as it stood before June 1, 2015, did not permit the levy of fees under Section 234E during the processing of TDS statements. Therefore, the impugned levy was unsustainable.
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as the tax effect was below the limit prescribed by the CBDT Circular. The case did not fall under any of the exemption clauses provided in the circular.
The Tribunal inferred that the assessee was not serious about pursuing the case. Citing various High Court and ITAT judgments, the Tribunal decided to dismiss the appeal.
The Tribunal held that the AO's reasons for reopening the assessment were insufficient to form a 'reason to believe' that income had escaped assessment. The AO merely intended to conduct an inquiry rather than having a prima facie belief of escapement.
The Tribunal allowed the depreciation claim, following its own prior decisions. For the Section 80IA deduction, it upheld the CIT(A)'s cost allocation for power generation, which resulted in a partial allowance.
The Tribunal, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision in similar cases, upheld the CIT(A)'s order restricting the disallowance to 25% of the bogus purchases. The assessee's appeals were dismissed due to a significant delay and lack of proper condonation procedure.